Existence is Relative; and Relative Existence is Ability: Why Existence cannot be the metaphysical primary

By what means can causality occur? Absent interaction between objects, the root of which is action, how can we describe causality in the first place? Without action, what is a cause? It is nothing. And without action, what is an effect? It is nothing.

Is not cause-and-effect interaction rooted in the existence of the object of the cause—the thing which causes—and the object of the effect—the thing which is caused upon? Perhaps we can argue this, but not without the premise that the existence of the objects interacting is necessarily bound by relativity. That is, there is no cause and/or effect absent, not existence, but relative existence. Said another way, not existence, but relativity.

Allow me to state that in a slightly modified way.

I can admit that each object in the cause and effect equation must “exist” in some sense a priori to the cause and effect interaction—otherwise it can be said that there is nothing which causes, and nothing which is caused upon. Yet also what must be true is that cause and effect is a relative relationship. That is, the object which is being caused upon and the object which is doing the causing must be relatively considered (from the point of view of the observer). Without relativity, a distinction cannot be made between that which causes and that which is caused upon. And if this distinction cannot be made then by what rational proof can we claim that existence is the metaphysical primary? If we cannot make relative cause and effect distinctions between objects, because relativity between objects which co-exist is not necessarily implied (by the metaphysical primary of existence) then how can we describe reality at all?

What I mean is that if all objects are fundamentally in a vacuum of their own static existence qua existence, then interaction is not really possible. And if interaction is not possible then relative distinctions cannot be made and thus the whole of objective reality cannot possibly be defined.

Without interaction action is irrelevant. That is, without the interaction of objects then ANY object action, in and of, and to and from itself is not only meaningless but impossible. Interaction—that is, relativity—is the foundation of reality. Relativity is interaction, rooted in object action…and even deeper, the object’s ability to act. Without ability and action as metaphysical prerequisites, existence does not and cannot actually mean existing.

In summary:

Relative existence, or relativity, not mere existence, underlies cause-and-effect; and cause-and-effect is interaction; and interaction is action. Existence alone, certainly existence as the metaphysical primary, fits nowhere into this equation. Existence, by itself, is not relative and does not imply relativity, and thus is not active, and thus does not do anything, which means it does not actually exist. For if it did exist—if it did DO existence—then it would be able to exist, which means it would be active, which means it would be relative. Because to act non-relatively to another object is an impossible definition of action. A thing cannot act in an absolute vacuum of itself, because in such a case it cannot be said to move anywhere…to go, or shift, or change. All of these things can only be done relative to the position of something else.

If existence does exist, then it is able to exist which means it is active which means it is relative. And relativity is object interaction, thereby making the ability to act a prerequisite of an object’s existence. Existence then, alone, is simply not the metaphysical primary. For existence to be efficacious it must be active. And active existence demands that the metaphysical primary is ability, which then implies relativity.